Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 11:01:37AM +0100, Robert Jarzmik wrote: > I had a look at it and the problem seems to be the fat caching layer I > introduced. It brings the fat on disk and in memory out of sync. This > layer has been necessary since without it the performance of the fat > driver is really poor. You could try the following branch. It reverts > the fat cache layer support and instead reimplements the block caching > layer so that it can handle the access patterns of the fat driver > better. > It would be great if you could give it some testing as obviously my test > patterns didn't reveal the 'create folder' bug you described. Tomorrow or wednesday, I'll make the few tests I always do (making a directory, copying a file, deleting a file, etc ...) and report. As I also happen to use the FAT on SDCard for reading my framebuffer image, and also to drop MTD content onto the same FAT, I'll tell you my "feeling" about performance. Cheers. -- Robert _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
